God in the Forest

[wesmorris]

For YOU, NOW, belief in God indeed is a matter of choice.

This is why you can't choose to believe in God.

People can choose many things, but belief in God is not one of them.
God was there first.

WRONG. God is not natural to humans. It's LEARNED. It was NOT there first, it was LEARNED. Thus, it is a choice for everyone.

If it were not, then you could not explain different religions. All would believe the same.

Ridiculing proves nothing.

Why is that riduculing? The thing is WATER, even those who agree on god DO NOT AGREE ON GOD. You are all separated by the tao no matter how much you plea with your projection of self for it not to be so. Honesty is a bitch, deal with her.

 

[wesmorris]

Without God, everything is relativistic and ultimately arbitrary.
Theists agree on that.

Which god?

Whose idea thereof?

The greek gods are the true gods. No it's Allah. No, it's Jaway or whatever. No, it's the sun god.

Theists can't agree on shit. They only agree that their knowledge usurps all others, even when others are as convinced of their different knowledge is just as valid.

You're chasing a farce.

My apologies. I meant:
Faith in God is given by God.

Bullshit. Faith in god is emotional dependence. It's self, projecting self into something it proclaims isn't self.

You have the authority of your impression of your environment. To proclaim more is to overstep your authority. If you want to lie to yourself about the validity of your claims in "objective reality", you obviously can. That won't change that it's a lie.

 

[(Q)]

You are assuming that the only valid kind of evidence is that one which exists independent from observers.
There is no such evidence.

No, valid evidence simple exists.

water sez: Faith is given by God.

southstar disagrees: Now that is 100% wrong.

It appears gods knowledge has not come to you. Either that or you are seriously misunderstanding the message. What other knowledge of god are you misunderstanding?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm not being unnecessarily contarary, but I see no difference in those two definitions, as per the diagram in which we're both trapped (with the tao always between us).

I understand what you're saying, but it's ultimately the same thing is the point. The difference is honesty IMO, but that understanding is consequential of my faith.

Same word, different context perhaps. Context is important and stuff.

I don't disagree... but you're ignoring the model. If you take issue with it, please tell me how to escape our trap. I'll flee with you and we can shoot some pool afterwards maybe.

Sure, because you unconditionally trust that it is as you think it is - as do I. As a good skeptic, musn't we allow for the possibility of being wrong, even if the error in our assertion may be non-consequential?

So it would seem and so I'd agree in general... however to be consistent, we must admit the potential error in our model no?... even if it's negligable? You sure your instruments were calibrated? Nobody dropped them? How precise are they? What if I don't care? Surely in such a case YOU have an "objective model" from your perspective, but what about from mine? Can I claim more than how things seem to me? If so, on what authority? Who granted it? Hell maybe you can tell me things as they are to you.. but did you communicate it 100%? Should I believe that things as they are to you are as they are to me? Why? Which things? Damn that trap! The only way out is that dirty, dirty word. I prefer the short step (as you seem to as well, so short you missed it!). Others, they come ass-backwards. Hence - conflict.

Speaking in evolutionary terms it makes perfect sense that it takes both kinds. A faithless individual can take no assertive action. Acts of will require faith in your premise. You and I both decide to keep our premise minimal: "reality is real", "reason is valid", etc. Those who take their premise to the hilt are more easily motivated to accomplish tasks related to their perception of survival, though perhaps less likely to be accurate in the outcome. Wait, a better idea: Given the human mind as a hueristic problem solving mechanism (by nature, though alternatives can be cultivated)... is it not, dependent on the personality and capability of the individual, better to minimize the solution set, such that solutions (though perhaps not the REAL solution) are found more quickly... especially if your ass depends on it (or SEEMS to depend on it)????????????

Every person has a bit of both it seems.

Bah.

Perhaps. I'd prefer to hash out the differences if you're interested. If we are both reasonable, surely we can reach a mutual understanding eh?

Did you read the story? Hehe.

I saw that story. T'was coolio. I want to take a different approach on this
puppy as I think the assertion of my being part of realtiy is a statement
of faith has led to the evil tao paradigm trap that may be overcomable.

Is there anything that you are very strongly attracted to? It could be a
person, color, object, sensation, sound, etc.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

Crunchy Cat,

Yeah. Whereby you know insist to know in advance what this truth is ... your expectation is a farce. You have already set the criteria of what you deem acceptable and what not.

I assert my way of thinking has alignement towards getting to the truth. Reality validates this.

They cannot be resolved, they are inherent to the method of analysis.

Use what reality provides to update the method.

And in all that tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime, I will only get old, my life will pass, while I have waited and tried to participate (albeit minuscully minuscle) in the next breakthrough scientific discovery!

You'll get old and your life will pass either way.

Because "emotions" have nothing to do with the true image of reality!!

Only an untrained reason would say a thing like that.

Emotions are a convenient scapegoat those who refuse to admit untrained reason use to excuse their mental laxness. This goes both for them as well as for those they describe to be "emotional" or "following emotional needs and confusing them for reality".

You have to distinguish between "being emotional" and "faulty logic". The two have nothing to with one another, even though the popular argument goes that "when emotional, you can't think straight".

If you cannot think straight, you won't think straight, no matter what emotional state you are in.

Being in an intense emotional state only brings out the untrained reason even more, but emotions don't interfere with your reasoning abilities; your logic doesn't become faulty because you are happy or sad.

If your logic becomes faulty when you are (intensely) happy or said, this only testifies that you are holding inconsistent beliefs. The intense emotional state only highlights the inconsistencies pertinent in that given situation.

People who hold consistent beliefs keep them regardless of the emotional state they are in; their logic doesn't become faulty once they are in an intense emotional state.

The assertion that emotion doesn't affect reason is simply false. Information is processed emotionally FIRST in the brain.

 

[water]

WRONG. God is not natural to humans. It's LEARNED. It was NOT there first, it was LEARNED. Thus, it is a choice for everyone.

If it were not, then you could not explain different religions. All would believe the same.
/.../
Why is that riduculing? The thing is WATER, even those who agree on god DO NOT AGREE ON GOD. You are all separated by the tao no matter how much you plea with your projection of self for it not to be so. Honesty is a bitch, deal with her.

There are different religions because of people, not because of God.
Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

And I don't know how you can prove that "we are all separated by the tao". This is a statement of faith.

 

[water]

You're chasing a farce.

Says you, based on your particular dislike for God and me.

 

[water]

I assert my way of thinking has alignement towards getting to the truth. Reality validates this.

And you firmly believe that my way of thinking has no or little alignment towards getting to the truth ...

Use what reality provides to update the method.

Has been done.

You'll get old and your life will pass either way.

Only that if I live your way, I am bound to be miserable, as I have to treat myself as a dead thing.

The assertion that emotion doesn't affect reason is simply false. Information is processed emotionally FIRST in the brain.

Funny you should say this -- when you also rail so much against emotions.
You've just stated that emotions are inescapable, while before, you claimed you try to get past emotions and not let them influence your understanding of reality.

 

[(Q)]

Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

That simply cannot be. If knowledge of god is universal to all, there would be only one religion, one god, and everyone would have equal and identical knowledge.

It may not entirely disprove god, but it comes very close.

 

[mouse]

Water,

Given these quotes:

If God wants you to know Him, He will let you know.

You, nor anybody else, have no business trying to prove or disprove God. It is per definition beyond human power to do so (the created cannot prove it is created).

There are different religions because of people, not because of God.

So, you imply that:
1. God makes its presence known to selected individuals
2. This presence felt by the individual is the only way God is known to exist. There is no other proof which does not rely on these "observers" of its presence.
3. Nonetheless, nobody can figure out what or who this presence is or what it wants, because humans fail to interpret this presence correctly. Given the significant differences between the many belief systems the world has seen, this presence has completely failed to communicate its wishes and identity clearly.

Now, others suggest that:
1. Religion is a social construct, invented by humans in different places at different times.

What seems more likely to the objective observer?

 

[wesmorris]

There are different religions because of people, not because of God.
Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

Never once have I attempted to disprove god. I've disproven its knowability and thus, relevance.

And I don't know how you can prove that "we are all separated by the tao". This is a statement of faith.

Of course it is. It depends on us agreeing on the ground rules. Did you read the story?

You are free to reject what I deem reasonable as not, and I you. Thus, relativism is established and my point trumps your own to me. You will likely continue in grasping your own, which IMO, simply proves my point beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[wesmorris]

Says you, based on your particular dislike for God and me.

It is ridiculous of you to presume you understand the basis for my objection without my proclamation thereof as other than "this is how things seem to me". The basis of my opinion has nothing to do with my distaste for some of your opinions, or a "dislike of god". How can I like or dislike something that I can't know?

I dislike claims of knowledge related to the obviously unknowable, and have demonstrated ad nauseum why it is indeed unknowable. Obviously you reject my argument, but that doesn't invalidate it. It simply means you can't relate, as I cannot relate to yours. Each is a consequence of the acceptance of our respective premise.

You NEED the idea of god, so you project it and proclaim it valid, based on jack shit but YOU.

 

[wesmorris]

I saw that story. T'was coolio. I want to take a different approach on this puppy as I think the assertion of my being part of realtiy is a statement of faith has led to the evil tao paradigm trap that may be overcomable.

Gah. I hate it when points are just washed away with a proclamation of gut feelings. Where is my argument weak? Analyze damn you! I give you my brain, now you share yours!

Is there anything that you are very strongly attracted to? It could be a
person, color, object, sensation, sound, etc.

*shrug*

Sure. Let's say sciforums for kicks. I gravitate here for a number of reasons.

 

[water]

Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

That simply cannot be. If knowledge of god is universal to all, there would be only one religion, one god, and everyone would have equal and identical knowledge.

Doesn't follow.
Knowledge of God is not universal to all.
Also, the knowlegde that people do have about God depends also on how they act on their free will to obey God. If they don't obey God properly, they also have lesser knowledge.

 

[water]

It is ridiculous of you to presume you understand the basis for my objection without my proclamation thereof as other than "this is how things seem to me". The basis of my opinion has nothing to do with my distaste for some of your opinions, or a "dislike of god". How can I like or dislike something that I can't know?

What I see in you is somoene who rebels against God.

You NEED the idea of god, so you project it and proclaim it valid, based on jack shit but YOU.

... and all the theists in the world.

You, on the other hand, denigrate your need for God, and ridicule God, insisting that you do not need God, and support this with saying that God is unknowable.

 

[water]

So, you imply that:
1. God makes its presence known to selected individuals
2. This presence felt by the individual is the only way God is known to exist. There is no other proof which does not rely on these "observers" of its presence.
3. Nonetheless, nobody can figure out what or who this presence is or what it wants, because humans fail to interpret this presence correctly. Given the significant differences between the many belief systems the world has seen, this presence has completely failed to communicate its wishes and identity clearly.

Now, others suggest that:
1. Religion is a social construct, invented by humans in different places at different times.

What seems more likely to the objective observer?

There is no such thing as an "objective observer".
According to common sense reasoning, the theory that religion is a social construct is of course more likely.
But truth is not simply that which is more likely.

 

[water]

Never once have I attempted to disprove god. I've disproven its knowability and thus, relevance.

The knowability of anything can be disproven -- one only needs to lack the according experience.
Thus, anything is irrelevant.

You are free to reject what I deem reasonable as not, and I you. Thus, relativism is established and my point trumps your own to me. You will likely continue in grasping your own, which IMO, simply proves my point beyond reasonable doubt.

I know relativism and agnosticism well enough to know their implications.
Of course, in your eyes, your point trumps mine. In my eyes, my point trumps yours.

 

[wesmorris]

What I see in you is somoene who rebels against God.

And what I see in you is condescending presumption that frames me in a mold you made for me, and a lack of humility regarding the extent of your authority. I have no chance of leaving the box you frame me into in your mind unless you allow it.

You're tiassa I suppose.

A claim of god is simply dishonest, as it fails to acknowledge the possiblity of irrelevance.

... and all the theists in the world.

Yup. Does that make it such that "god" is real?

You, on the other hand, denigrate your need for God, and ridicule God, insisting that you do not need God, and support this with saying that God is unknowable.

Why on earth would your pretentious ass presume your own emotional neediness projects to ME? Why would you presume your own emotional neediness is relevant outside yourself? I have no need for your constructs. I'm perfectly capable of constructing my own comprehension. Perhaps you aren't and as a consequence, cannot understand how someone else might differ.

 

[(Q)]

Knowledge of God is not universal to all.

:bugeye:

So, who gets access to knowledge of god and who doesn't? Why and why not?

If they don't obey God properly, they also have lesser knowledge.

If by obeying god properly, you mean they must follow scriptures to the letter?

Already we've seen that others here appear to obey god with more diligence than you, yet you've disagreed with them vehemently in opposition and damnation. In fact, I've yet to see one theist back down from his/her belief system from being the absolute correct one, you included.

You all can't possibly be right about the same thing if you all disagree.

 

[§outh§tar]

As I said to LT, we do not have to have complete definitions. But some foundation must be laid before one can even begin to postulate the existence of anything. If the term God is meaningless then the statement "I believe in God" is also meaningless.

Ok.

As long as we agree that "meaning" and "meaninglessness" are arbitrarily ascribed; no one (rationalist or not) has the objective perspective with which to determine this. Unless of course you know of a rational methodology for doing so. Like water was saying to wesmorris, the theists think their reasoning is right and the atheists think they are reasoning is right. JamesR also said something very poignant to me in another discussion, something I have been trying to get across: the only difference between (strong) atheists and theists are their preliminary assumptions. All other philosophies and theologies follow with logical consistency (for the most part, at least).

So that it is illogical for an atheist to say a theist's assumption is wrong because his assumption is right. The independent method of arbitration is what you rationalists have for this and I'm interested in knowing what it is.

I sure can. Here I am. I am located directly in front of my monitor, typing away on my keyboard, contemplating your words and forming replies.

That is sophistry. You are not saying you are the sum of your body parts, are you? For that would mean you would be changed if a hair were to be plucked from you. So:

In a rational and non-circular manner, please define "I". Failure to do so will only indicate that we cannot define ourselves, a point I don't think is worth bickering over; too off-topic.

True. But we can endeavor to eliminate that which we cannot support and is unnecessary rather than submerging oneself ever deeper in fantasy. I became an atheist when, as an agnostic, I asked myself what reason I had to continue to believe there might be a god.

What is "unnecessary" to you might not be unnecessary to someone else. In retrospect, I see Christianity (and religion in general) as "fantasy" but before, I knew it to be both "real" and "necessary".
All that has changed is my perspective. I can call religion a potent deluding force all I want and a theist can disagree. We will each claim that our reasoning is rational because we have no objective perspective with which to settle our issues.

Now.. what were we talking about again?

I don't see how that follows.

Nobody is consistently rational. But that's a whole other topic I don't want to talk about here for reasons of laziness and redundancy; I'm having the same conversation in the thread 'Bad Religion', if you care.

I have opinions on the subject of God based upon my understanding of the concepts involved.

Ok. Then any positive/negative opinion would, necessarily, only be based on this subjective understanding. But this goes without any saying because all our knowledge ostensibly seems to be that way. I say ostensibly because I hold suspicions that there are subtle roots to understanding. But that is more of a psychology issue so nevermind..

A true statement is one that is congruent with reality.

And who is the arbiter to say what reality is and isn't? Scientists, the popular majority ("most people"), the individual, the atheist, the theist?

More specifically, how do we know whose reason is "congruent with reality"? Is there any standard for determining this that you have in mind?

I never said that people should ignore their emotions. I said that emotion doesn't validate a belief. Getting away from work, going to a nice place and doing things that you enjoy simply to enjoy them is a perfectly logical thing to do. Where do you get the idea that logic and emotion are incompatible?

I don't know that emotion can corroborate logic. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Secondly what do you mean when you say "validate". A belief is only necessary "validated" in the eyes of the belief-holder. If you don't agree with the belief, surely, it is not because you have an objective perspective with which to arbitrate?

I don't find that it matters really.

~Raithere

Why, then, would you become an atheist, if you did not believe it would make you better? Your switchover from agnosticism was for a reason, surely. Did you feel it made you more honest with yourself, or rational etc etc?